You Call That Justice?
Another thing about that Karen Armstrong piece. I touched on it in passing yesterday, but it occurred to me this morning that I needed to make much more of it. She said something really quite disgusting.
…the chief problem for most Muslims is not “the west” per se, but the suffering of Muslims in Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Iraq and Palestine. Many Britons share this dismay, but the strong emphasis placed by Islam upon justice and community solidarity makes this a religious issue for Muslims. When they see their brothers and sisters systematically oppressed and humiliated, some feel as wounded as a Christian who sees the Bible spat upon or the eucharistic host violated.
Wait. What? The strong emphasis on justice in Islam makes the suffering of Muslims a special concern, a special source of wounding? What? What does that have to do with justice? What kind of blinkered, narrow, parochial, groupy conception of justice is that? What – the suffering of Muslims is terrible while the suffering of non-Muslims is no biggy? Is that justice? Any more than it’s justice to think the suffering of Americans is unendurable while the suffering of Indonesians or Rwandans or Iraqis is nothing to get in a fret about? Justice is universal or its nothing; that’s part of the meaning of justice; that’s why we think special rules or privileges for one group at the expense of other groups is, precisely, unjust. A concern for suffering that is actually only a concern for the suffering of One’s Own Group is not a real concern for suffering, it’s a concern for One’s Own Group and ultimately oneself.
What on earth was Armstrong thinking when she wrote that?
Update: Norm also has a comment on this. The story of Derek and Elaine is relevant, too.
Actually for many Muslims it is not the suffering of Muslims that is ‘terrible’. It’s the suffering of Muslims which can plausibly be attributed to the infidels. So Abu Ghraib was of no interest when Saddam was in charge but became of interest once the Americans were in control. Similarly Darfur is of no interest, but Palestine is. And it is of no interest when Sunni and Shia choose to kill each other, but of great interest if US or British forces kill either.
Yes, and Armstrong managed to make that mistake too. Funny idea of justice she has.
How depressing all this is.
I think the idea is that you show what a sensitive soul you are by repeating uncritically what the least thoughtful muslims say about themselves.
Depressing indeed.
Hmm. I think she probably did mean ‘justice’ – it is one of the frequently-made claims about Islam that it has a special concern with justice. I assumed she was drawing on that idea. Only she made such a bad job of it!
I take back the comment that she’s no fool. I’ve been resisting that conclusion for years now, and I think I’ve given up the fight. The hell with it.
OB: “Hmm. I think she probably did mean ‘justice’ – it is one of the frequently-made claims about Islam that it has a special concern with justice.”
I thought the link was clear: justice comes from law; Islamic law is Sharia law; Sharia law is religious; therefore, any violation of law is, by definition, a crime against Islam.
In the West, in contrast, we ‘only’ violate secular law. (Except, of course, to the extremist, everyone is supposed to observe Sharia law.)
Armstrong, of course, is ignoring the fact that much Sharia law is NOT justice.
Ah. I didn’t even think of that. I’ve always thought it meant social justice. Linked to the obligation to give alms, and the like.
The interesting point is that there is an inherent contradiction in what she says. Her first point is thoughtful on Islamism, which she argues is an assault on other Muslim regimes and mainstream Islamic religious belief. In other words the main target of Islamism is fellow Muslims. Yet the second point rests on a cliche about the “main problem” for all Muslims being the actions of the West. Of course, it can’t be both.
What she fails to do is to distinguish between perception and reality in political discourses. The west may be SEEN as the main problem by some Muslims. This, though, disguises the fact that Islamism is a revolutionary movement directed primarily against the Muslim world. The west is a problem in their eyes in that it “corrupts” Islamic regimes with secularism and modernism. The events in Iraq etc. symbolise this. By accepting western actions as “the main problem” she makes an unwitting accomodation with Islamism.
However, what she does say is that this perception is limiting the effectiveness of government appeals to Muslims but sadly lapses into cliche about foreign policy.
“This, though, disguises the fact that Islamism is a revolutionary movement directed primarily against the Muslim world.”
Just so. And causing massive suffering there. Those bombs all over Bangladesh for instance, or the slaughter in Algeria, or the imposition of Sharia in Northern Nigeria, or the mess in Indonesia, or Thailand, or the Philippines – etc.
Peter R: “This, though, disguises the fact that Islamism is a revolutionary movement directed primarily against the Muslim world.”
I would say that it is *currently* primarily directed against the Muslim world.